Fine. Still, it would be nice if Gura gave at least some thought to the division he creates in the gun culture when he comes out publicly and loudly swinging against the NRA. If he has criticisms, he should make the quietly, behind closed doors. And WLP should at least listen to him.

He's less worried about gun culture and politics than results in courtroom. Fairfax won't listen to him because they're unfortunately trying to tail-end on his wins.

He's also becoming something of a gun rights ambassador. He should keep these points in mind when he speaks in public.

He grew up in loud, noisy Israel. He's "that way" about *everything*.

He's less of "gunnie" than "this is the key civil right I happen to be working on now".

Quote:

What makes you think that WLP made his comments with recruiting anywhere on the radar?

If it wasn't, that's worrisome. I think WLP was ill-served by staff on this. NRA floats at ~4Mil membership with a slight greying demographic.

Younger folk of today who are shooters - and prob of whom 80% play CoD, ModernWarfare, etc on their XBox - and who are not organization 'joiners' - and hearing they're bad people. That's akin to a crust 60 yr old telling a 20 year old why wingtips are cool.

Quote:

This is the first I've heard that this concern exists.

It is indeed a concern in quiet discussions. To degree/extent, dunno.

We think there may be a time-lag/setback in cases that otherwise might rise more quickly. Lanza should certainly be blamed, but we don't have to fan highly-observed PR statements under their nose.

Bottom line, Wayne could have been better served by staff who should have called external PR marketing people to tune a message.

I will say the cops-in-school stuff did seem to resonate in general newspaper commentary forum. It may have served as a useful 'subject diverter'.

__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life memberNo postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, areto be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Netownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.

Not a single mind in America was changed by La Pierre's statement. The NRA base cheered; NRA skeptics remained skeptical.

And more than a handful of NRA members became skeptics too.

This is the concern. I would ask folks who thinks it's off base to criticize the WLP speech to talk to a PR person who is in the middle what they thought about that speech. The exact same facts and political plan (armed school guards) could have been presented while not trying to scare people even more. Further, if you're going to demonize other rights, it's doubly inept to demonize artistic works that are over 10 years old.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwissFluCase

The big issue I have is that the video game players ARE the future of the NRA.

Emphasis added. If we banned everyone who played Call of Duty from Calguns, would we have anyone but Kestryll left?

-Gene

__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns FoundationDONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!

"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon

The problem with crazy people is, simply, this: their reaction to the world is different than that of the rest of us in ways that are sometimes very dangerous and highly unpredictable.

You cannot predict what specific thing in the world will cause them to "go off". Whether it's video games, movies, the news, books, newspapers, or events that happen to them personally, every single thing they're exposed to presents some chance of setting them off.

But in the end, every one of you must understand one thing: none of those things are the cause of the violence initiated by insane people. The cause is the insanity itself.

That is why this whole video game nonsense is just that: nonsense. Going down the path of restricting video games is no different than going down the path of restricting books. It's all speech in the end, with different delivery mechanisms.

No, this problem, like so many others, can be solved either by decreasing liberty (increasing restrictions on video games, etc.) or by increasing liberty (making information available about the content of the games so that parents can make informed choices, and making it possible for people to be armed so they can effectively deal with situations like an insane person going off dangerously). If someone has a problem with the "informed choice" bit because they think it won't work, then they must somehow be arguing against the notion that the responsibility for what children who are not yet of age do ultimately falls squarely on the shoulders of the parents.

Regardless, it's high time we in this country stop calling for restrictions. We have too many as it is. ENOUGH!! If anyone in this country wants to live in a society that has even more restrictions than are already in place, they can move to someplace like China, where the government will happily slap interminable restrictions on them and everyone else. This place (the United States) has been trashed far too much already.

I kind of wonder though if Wayne LaPierre brought up video games simply as a distraction. I'm pretty sure there are quite a few of the antis out there that would agree with him, and perhaps redirect some of their efforts away from firearms.

__________________WARNING: THE ABOVE POST MAY CONTAIN EXCESSIVE USE OF SARCASM.

I kind of wonder though if Wayne LaPierre brought up video games simply as a distraction. I'm pretty sure there are quite a few of the antis out there that would agree with him, and perhaps redirect some of their efforts away from firearms.

__________________WARNING: THE ABOVE POST MAY CONTAIN EXCESSIVE USE OF SARCASM.

I kind of wonder though if Wayne LaPierre brought up video games simply as a distraction. I'm pretty sure there are quite a few of the antis out there that would agree with him, and perhaps redirect some of their efforts away from firearms.

__________________WARNING: THE ABOVE POST MAY CONTAIN EXCESSIVE USE OF SARCASM.

Regardless, it's high time we in this country stop calling for restrictions. We have too many as it is. ENOUGH!! If anyone in this country wants to live in a society that has even more restrictions than are already in place, they can move to someplace like China, where the government will happily slap interminable restrictions on them and everyone else. This place (the United States) has been trashed far too much already.

^^ Yep. Want safety, cleanliness, good economy, but at the cost liberty? Try Singapore, just don't bring any bubble gum with you.

I support a right to bear arms, because it's a right -- bears and arms are nice too, but right is the key part. That's where Alan Gura shines: to the tech-savvy, liberties-minded, crowd (whether or not they choose to actually exercise RKBA), these arguments hold more sway.

I kind of wonder though if Wayne LaPierre brought up video games simply as a distraction. I'm pretty sure there are quite a few of the antis out there that would agree with him, and perhaps redirect some of their efforts away from firearms.

__________________WARNING: THE ABOVE POST MAY CONTAIN EXCESSIVE USE OF SARCASM.

Regardless, it's high time we in this country stop calling for restrictions. We have too many as it is. ENOUGH!! If anyone in this country wants to live in a society that has even more restrictions than are already in place, they can move to someplace like China, where the government will happily slap interminable restrictions on them and everyone else. This place (the United States) has been trashed far too much already.

^^ Yep. Want safety, cleanliness, good economy, but at the cost liberty? Try Singapore, just don't bring any bubble gum with you.

I support a right to bear arms, because it's a right -- bears and arms are nice too, but right is the key part. That's where Alan Gura shines: to the tech-savvy, liberties-minded, crowd (whether or not they choose to actually exercise RKBA), these arguments hold more sway.

The problem with crazy people is, simply, this: their reaction to the world is different than that of the rest of us in ways that are sometimes very dangerous and highly unpredictable.

This!

Your average person does not understand this concept. They try to frame these problems with their world view and perceptions, and it just doesn't work. This is why we get so much bad legislation after mass shootings. I would consider a loss of 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendment rights as a result of Sandyhook to be a loss for the US, even if no gun control is passed.

Ive played games for almost 3 decades. Im 32 years old next month. Its not the games themselves. Theres a deeper socioeconomic disconnect here. Between busy parents that didnt get to spend quality time learning and being disciplined by parental example having kids and not really having learned to raise a child by example and being poor enough to mandate long hours and games being cheap entertainment that keeps kids inside nd away from "dangerous strangers" theres arecipe for dysfunction. These people were effectively either smothered with well meaning but harmful affection or neglected so mom and dad could work. They never learned to separate fantasy from reality and while theres a debate on mental health, i believe a good bit of the "loner that gets rejected" and "bullied out for retaliation" type killers were just in one of those two type families and didnt get emotional support. Self esteem problems, various confidence issues and being overly coddled are all causes for disturbed childhood. I know a family member that became reclusive, yet promiscuous and a drunk because it got her the attention she felt she didnt get as a kid. Shed get retaliatory when dumped by her latest sugar daddy and sometimes i worried shed get arrested for doing stuff.

Its not just the games. The root cause is deeper. Much deeper.

I do agree with kes on desensitization. Happens with adult movies too. Then those affected cant perform in a real relationship because the sex isnt freaky enough. Vicious cycle.

Gene, Id be here. I dont play CoD. Kinda hate shooters. More a RPG nut, preferring swords and scorcery over guns and lightsabers.

That said, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are only approved for depression I thought? Im often wary of offlabel use, particularly with things that messs with brain chemistry. What SSRIs do is reduce the reuptake of serotonin thus increasing the amount in the system. Most effectiveky used on severe or moderately severe depression. Any other use freaks me out, and anyone THAT depressed should be watched to prevent them from hurting themselves or others. Ive been on a few. They did not work. Instead of upping the dose doc just tried something else. Glad she did. Excellent psychiatrist too. I recommend her to anyone. Pediatric psych. Advocates therapy before dtugs probably why my success in beating my problem occurred. She was excellent.

Is there any research on the effect of violent video games on people who are mentally ill?

I have been meaning to discuss the issue of the "mentally ill" in light of recent events.

The problem with it is that there's really no concrete standard for determining "mental illness". Psychology isn't a hard science, and I think most psychologists would agree that mental health should often be evaluated on an individual basis rather than by some kind of "formulaic" determination. We should also recognize just because someone is "bat sh** crazy" doesn't mean he/she's stupid. There's a somewhat well-known case of the infamous serial killer Edmund Kemper. One day he met with a panel of state psychiatrists as a follow up for his parole. Kemper, who was said to possess an IQ of around 140, did the act and told them what they wanted to hear, and this panel of TWO psychiatrists proceeded to declare him "normal and safe", and even sealed his juvenile records...all the while he had a severed head of one of his fresh victims right in the trunk of his car.

So what quantifies as "mentally ill"?
This is really not that clear cut. Going to back to using Edmund Kemper as an example - if you look at his background history and what he did, I think we can all probably agree that he was very mentally disturbed. In fact, he was diagnosed early as having paranoid schizophrenia. Yet he had full awareness of what he was doing, just like a lot of serial killers do, and he even had the mental capacity to trick trained psychiatrists into believing he was fine. The fact of the matter is "insanity" is an ambiguous and even somewhat mystical concept to most of us.
There have been cases where a serial killer's defense lawyers have attempted to argue the insanity plea based simply on the killer's actions. "He murdered 25 people, therefore he's obviously insane." It's plain to see this is circular logic. But where does one draw the line between "insanity" and "personal desire to do evil"?

I think a large amount of people who are "mentally ill" are not going to go out and harm people. Sure, in hindsight, a lot of those mass murderers have some kind of mental issues, but at the same time we can also observe that they are mostly white males. That information doesn't really do us that much good to PREVENT crime.

It might be beneficial to narrow down the characteristics some more. For example, perhaps we should be looking at people with mental illnesses that have exhibited violent tendencies/outbursts. But in this case, there's little point to studying the effects of violent video games on these people, as they are already predisposed to violence and require no additional encouragement.

Sorry this is getting a bit long winded and unfocused. I mainly want to convey that "mental illness" is an extremely complicated issue, because there are no clear definitions, no clear ways to detect them, and no clear ways to prevent crimes caused by them without some severe restrictions on liberty.

In my opinion, the NRA began to fail years ago when they began to put hyperbole in their editorials while ignoring facts. They are now nothing more than a huge fund raising organization bent on getting more money.

Had they been a true gun rights .org, California's gun laws would not be the way they are.

CDFingers

Last edited by CDFingers; 01-12-2013 at 6:29 AM..
Reason: swapped out a consonant tyop

So, I have great respect for Gura and agree with a lot of what he says. I was also a little disappointed with the message from the NRA, because to me it is like creating a TSA for the school system. I would much prefer legal concealed carry for qualified individuals.

However, I support the NRA and part of me is glad of the way they helped change the direction of the conversation.

Now, for all of these great ideas Gura and everyone else has- where is the organization made up of like minded members? Why is it not as powerful as the NRA? What are the NRA haters doing to grow those numbers?

The armchair quarterbacking is humerous.

__________________BamaCarry, Second Amendment Foundation Life Member, NRA Benefactor Member, FNRA Committee Member, Gun Owners of America Life Member, Citizens Committee For the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Life Member, NRA Golden Eagles

So, I have great respect for Gura and agree with a lot of what he says. I was also a little disappointed with the message from the NRA, because to me it is like creating a TSA for the school system. I would much prefer legal concealed carry for qualified individuals.

However, I support the NRA and part of me is glad of the way they helped change the direction of the conversation.

Now, for all of these great ideas Gura and everyone else has- where is the organization made up of like minded members? Why is it not as powerful as the NRA? What are the NRA haters doing to grow those numbers?

The armchair quarterbacking is humerous.

Well said. The more I read threads here the more I think this place is needs to have to change it's name to "CAL-WHINERS.COM." Then at least the arm-chair quarter backing and "eat your own" mentality would be expected.

Nobody is saying the NRA hasn't been successful. Just that in this instance they did a piss poor job of advancing our cause. We don't reach pop culture by saying "its the video games making people go crazy", we reach them by saying coming across with real valid constitutional principles.

I, for one, will say the NRA hasn't been successful. The very fact we are are having this discussion means they have failed. Had they been successful, no politician who valued their career would think of touching gun rights. The NRA has failed miserably at growing the base support for gun rights. As far as I can tell their focus has been on fundraising from the people whose support they'd have in any case. Instead of going on the offensive, they've simply retrenched their positions. Bunkering has become reflexive for their leadership and led to a myopic world view and hamfisted responses to gun rights challenges.

There are at least 40 million gun owning households in the US. NRA membership stands at a little over 4 million. Those two numbers are an indicator that what we have been doing is not working. If we can't pick up the active support of people who should be a slam dunk, we need to re-examine our strategy. I know a fair number gun owners who are not members of the NRA. The overwhelming feedback I get is that the NRA is not an organization for people like them. The perception is that the NRA is only for old white Republican men. This simple fact hurts us a lot.

The myopic world view and siloed thinking of the NRA leadership was evident in La Pierre's speech. The out of date cultural references were painful and painted an image of an out of touch, irrelevant organization. Instead of structuring a response that allowed future flexibility and appeared well reasoned, the NRA lashed itself to the school shield program, which anyone with a brain should have known was a non-starter. In talking to non-gun friends and many gun owning friends, I believe the NRA's response may well have done more damage to our cause than Sandyhook itself.

I had let my NRA membership lapse for several years. Like many gun owners I know, I concluded the NRA didn't want and was actively hostile to people like me. I realize now, that was a mistake. My response should have been to get more involved and advocate for change.

Dave Grossman is outstanding on the psychology behind killing, but he seems to have some hangup with video games.

I think I see how he gets there, but I think he's very badly confused about the issue.

First, Grossman's observation that the vast majority of people, if simply handed a firearm, and some technical training and marched off to war will fail to use their weapon effectively, even in the face of imminent peril is well documented.

Second, this reluctance can and has been effectively been overcome with conditioning techniques - this is now a primary focus of bootcamp.

Third, this conditioning can take several forms, of which video games are one method.

What Grossman fails to grasp is that video games in isolation have never been used for combat conditioning, but only in conjunction with other training and more, that they have not been used alone because they are insufficient for most people.

What is likely, though it probably has not been sufficiently examined, is that other forms of conditioning are probably sufficient in isolation among the same subset who find violent video games and movies adequate to overcome the natural aversion to killing.

Hunting for example.

Ryan

__________________
Bless, O Lord, this creature beer, which thou hast deigned to produce from the fat of grain: that it may be a salutary remedy to the human race, and grant through the invocation of thy holy name; that, whoever shall drink it, may gain health in body and peace in soul. Through Christ our Lord. Amen

Younger folk of today who are shooters - and prob of whom 80% play CoD, ModernWarfare, etc on their XBox - and who are not organization 'joiners' - and hearing they're bad people. That's akin to a crust 60 yr old telling a 20 year old why wingtips are cool.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoffmang

Emphasis added. If we banned everyone who played Call of Duty from Calguns, would we have anyone but Kestryll left?

-Gene

Perhaps the time has come for the NRA to support development of a multiple platform first person shooter promoting safe gun handling, operation, accuracy and shoot/dont shoot scenarios for people who are NOT professional soldiers.

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche

Perhaps the time has come for the NRA to support development of a multiple platform first person shooter promoting safe gun handling, operation, accuracy and shoot/dont shoot scenarios for people who are NOT professional soldiers.

Are we now now asking for a IPSC/USPSA/3-Gun style video game?

That would be freaking awesome!

__________________
"When you get the (men) to the range, you just get the men. But when you bring the (women) to the range, you get the (whole family). And that's what's going to save our 2nd Amendment."--Dianna Liedorff

"Since self-preservation is the 1st law of nature, we assert the...right to self-defense. The Constitution...clearly affirms the right of every American...to bear arms. And as Americans, we will not give up a single right guaranteed under the Constitution." --Malcolm X

Gura is, as usual, right from a civil rights issue (w/accompanying free speech matters - in fact, Leland
Yee's 'evil games bill' was overturned on those grounds). Consistence of civil rights across the board
helps all rights - and it helps gunrights falls into that pool of 'must be tolerated' in judicial mindset. .

Wayne didn't get that wise counsel from staff preparation, perhaps (likely) due to generational issues.
It would be interesting to see what a top-notch professional external marketing consultant would have
offered, given they're 'outside' and not in a proverbial 'echo chamber'.

One looming issue is the 'graying' of NRA membermship. We need to recruit far younger - and this doesn't
mean just getting nonrenewed gunshow membership.

Recruiting from the 20-40 age group is esp. harder when you start blaming 'violent' video games many
perfectly fine people have grown up with: I'd bet 70% of EBR buyers in CA have played Call of Duty, etc.
- and they're gonna say "Que?" to leadership of an org telling them they're doing 'bad things'. .

From pure political practicality: it occupied airtime/discussion time and displaced attacks on guns. It gave
something for politicians to substitute into argument frameworks instead of having to purely 'justify' guns.

I already notice House members talking about this and these sentiments being echoed by ordinary non-gun
folks in newspaper comment forums around the country.

This alone may be useful in spite of the above items. It may have secured the House some.

Nailed it... and I'm especially with you on the second point. Many younger people (say, under 35 years old) view the NRA as being an organization of foolish old crazies who embarrass themselves every time they say or write anything. The attitude of the organization and the image that they choose to project has only served to reinforce this view of the NRA--I, for example, lost even more respect for the NRA after I joined because I was exposed to their literature (articles in American Rifleman, flyers, letters, pamphlets, e-mails, etc... then, of course, there are the slimy life insurance and identity protection offers). I understand that their approach to doing things probably works well on older generations, but they're doing it at the cost of their future.

The long term game here is one of hearts and minds, not of court cases and lobbying (please note, I am in no way stating that these things are not important... I am merely trying to emphasize that the foundation of preserving our ability to own firearms depends on maintaining and/or improving society's views on firearms ownership and getting more people openly involved in shooting sports). Unfortunately, I see this as the area in which the NRA is weakest (as mentioned above) and simply throwing money at the NRA isn't going to fix this... which is why I volunteer my time, knowledge, and skills to help what I view as local outreach programs like the California Members' Councils. If enough of us really get involved, then maybe some positive change will result?

Another area that needs work is the way in which the NRA markets to women (my wife happens to find all of their training materials that are targeted toward women particularly insulting/offensive)...

Quote:

Originally Posted by CitaDeL

Perhaps the time has come for the NRA to support development of a multiple platform first person shooter promoting safe gun handling, operation, accuracy and shoot/dont shoot scenarios for people who are NOT professional soldiers.

No, just no... I don't see a scenario where 1) such a game would be meaningfully popular or 2) news of the NRA developing an FPS wouldn't blow up in their faces. Remember, you'd have to appeal to a larger audience than existing gun enthusiasts. How about we just get people into safety classes and onto the range?

Without the NRA we would probably be all shooting singleshots or worse yet, slingshots. So many Calgunners are such whiners and forget what was done for them 5 mins ago...depressing on here sometimes...i want to believe, but ugh....

Ok, whining can proceed now....

You do realize the NRA has supported major gun control like the NFA, GCA, etc.

I am an NRA member since 1976, a contributor and support them whole heatedly but let's not engage in any historical revisionism.

The NRA has been fighting for gun rights for around 35 years if I counted correctly. The NRA helped write the National Firearms Act of 1934 (and to give them credit they kept handguns from becoming NFA weapons as was originally envisioned). The NRA also helped write the Gun Control Act of 1968. There was always a part of the NRA that is kind of like the elite RINO's of the Republican Party. The "I'm a gunowner because I own a shotgun and I support gun control" pap that we hear today from the likes of Andrew Cuomo and that contemptible Mike Thompson. It makes me want to support a ban on shotguns and/or duck hunting just to shut them up. Anyway, I digress.

In the mid-70's there were discussions at the highest levels of the NRA about moving out of DC (to CO as I recall) and becoming primarily a promoter of gun safety and an organizer of marksmanship competitions. "Saturday Night Specials" were the equivalent of "assault rifles" today and the "Old Guard" elites tried to get the NRA to support the ban on them proposed by Birch Bayh (D - Indiana).

The NRA as we know it today was pretty much created by Harlan Carter who was disgusted by the appeasers who ran the NRA at the time and helped instigate what came to be known as the Cincinnati Revolt that saved the NRA from being run by duck hunters and target shooters and helped it become the Second Amendment defender it is today. In fact, pick up an pre-1977 copy of the NRA Fact Book on Firearms Control and see what they thought of the Second Amendment at the time; it wasn't good. The proof is left as an exercise for the reader.

We need to address the issues raised by spokesmen of the anti-gun crowd head-on, point by point, and systematically on a regular basis.

Every time one of them speaks in public, one of us should voice a rebuttal.

That can be done very effectively and economically via internet media, unlike in the past when one needed to whip up a "news conference."

__________________"The Religion of Peace":Islam: What the West Needs to Know.
". . . all [historical] experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms[of governmental abuses and usurpations] to which they are accustomed."
Decl. of Indep., July 4, 1776
NRA Benefactor/Life Member; Lifer: CRPA, GOA, SAF & JPFO

You do realize the NRA has supported major gun control like the NFA, GCA, etc.

Though the criticisms above your post are valid, but this is not. The NRA changed in the 1970's after the Cincinnati revolution. Trying to paint the current NRA with NFA & GCA is simply being ignorant of history.

-Gene

__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns FoundationDONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!

"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon

The other thing to remember is that WLP wasn't really speaking to the nation, he was speaking to the NRA base. The effectiveness of the NRA is that they spend money on candidates and against candidates. This speech is going to get more money for the NRA to do that.

Overall, that is good.

If I were a Republican congressperson listening to that speech, it just told me that I can oppose bans on the floor without fear because the NRA is going to help me NOT get a primary challenge in the next election. (I already know I am not going to get a Democratic challenge because after re-apportionment, I have a secure seat party-wise.) It told me that the NRA was not going to cave and neither should I.

If I were a judicial appointment waiting for confirmation I would know that the people questioning me were getting money from the NRA and were going to recommend or deny me based on my positions on guns.

Anything the NRA says is going to be opposed by the left. Why cater to them? If he had couched the terms to reach the "American People" that would have made him sound wishy-washy.

Gura mumbled a lot without suggesting any concrete solutions for stopping/preventing kids from being shot up.

Its easy to say NRA should not have done this or that.. Did Gura recommend anything that will protect kindergarteners from being shot up by the next deranged Cowardly Adam Lanza ?

Unless Gura has a better plan or one that is just as effective, he should shut the hell up. I have pre-teen kids and I would like nothing more than a Cop or a well trained Armed person at the school door.

It's not the NRA's job to offer school safety policy. The NRA needs to STFU about school security and video games and everything else not directly related to private firearms ownership in the USA. If you are as concerned as you sound about your own children, perhaps you ought to meet with your local PTA or school board.

Leave the NRA out of it.

Gura's right. The NRA is a civil rights organization and needs to start acting like one. I'm not sure how that will square with their love affair with the Republican Party (historically opposed to civil rights), but they need to decide where their priorities lay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goosebrown

The other thing to remember is that WLP wasn't really speaking to the nation, he was speaking to the NRA base.

What? He was speaking to everyone. The country waited a week while the NRA went silent, and anticipated an NRA response.

Now, if you are suggesting all LaPierre knows how to do anymore is speak to his base, as opposed to a more general public, then I heartily agree with you. And that's a problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goosebrown

Anything the NRA says is going to be opposed by the left. Why cater to them? If he had couched the terms to reach the "American People" that would have made him sound wishy-washy.

The only way we will preserve our firearms rights is by securing the support if the moderate voter. Focusing a message on these people will only sound wishy washy to an increasingly irrelevant base of angry white aging middle class males.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

Getting called a DOJ shill has become a rite of passage around here. I've certainly been called that more than once - I've even seen Kes get called that. I haven't seen Red-O get called that yet, which is very suspicious to me, and means he's probably a DOJ shill.

Perhaps the time has come for the NRA to support development of a multiple platform first person shooter promoting safe gun handling, operation, accuracy and shoot/dont shoot scenarios for people who are NOT professional soldiers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPSICK

Are we now now asking for a IPSC/USPSA/3-Gun style video game?

That would be freaking awesome!

I imagine it could have several 'missions', beginning with basic firearms handling and safety, target shooting, shooting trap, game, as well as home defense scenarios. Advancing the player only once the principles can be demonstrated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petra

No, just no... I don't see a scenario where 1) such a game would be meaningfully popular or 2) news of the NRA developing an FPS wouldn't blow up in their faces. Remember, you'd have to appeal to a larger audience than existing gun enthusiasts. How about we just get people into safety classes and onto the range?

Actually, some people who feel comfortable playing a Wii, but not comfortable with guns and live ammunition could be acclimatated to and learn about firearms in a safe environment like their living room would be a good beachhead to work on. Would you say the same of the Eddie the Eagle program? Or of Appleseed? All it is - is a different medium.

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche

I think the NRA can definitely benefit from a younger generation influx that isn't so much transfixed on a "Right vs. Left" mentality that seems to be the focus of so many topics and debates these days.

__________________
Ahhhhhhhhhhh! Man that was some great Kool-Aid.......... hmmmmmm theres a hint of something metallic. Oh well guess I will get on with the voting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SGTp

So if you do ban me you will hear from my lawyer as to why you think you can violate peoples civil rights

Quote:

Originally Posted by mosinnagantm9130

Oh for ****s sake, now there are two of them.This is the type of **** anti's point to when they want to make us all look crazy.

The funniest thing to me is how the conservatives feel liberals don't use logic and reasoning, and how the liberals think conservatives don't use logic and reasoning.

Maybe the real point is that, as I have learned, two reasonable people can view the same information and reach two different logical conclusions. As we have argued before, stop with the liberal vs conservative, and let's focus on the anti-gun vs pro-rights aspect.

The funniest thing to me is how the conservatives feel liberals don't use logic and reasoning, and how the liberals think conservatives don't use logic and reasoning.

Maybe the real point is that, as I have learned, two reasonable people can view the same information and reach two different logical conclusions. As we have argued before, stop with the liberal vs conservative, and let's focus on the anti-gun vs pro-rights aspect.

Sent via Note 2 Lte

The NRA has expanded it's charter far beyond preserving our Second Amendment rights and I think that has hurt our cause significantly. The Founders had differing ideologies but united in their cause for liberty and the Bill of Rights. and we need that same spirit today. when they let Sarah Palin open the convention a couple of years ago I feared for our 2A rights because of the polarization it caused. My fears have started to manifest themselves. Thsi si a single issue fight and let's keep our focus on that.

__________________Benefactor Member NRA, Life Member CRPA, CGN Contributor, US Army Veteran
—
Not wasting any more time and energy tilting, Don Quixote-like, on a regulatory problem that, constitutionally, should not even exist in a free state.
I cannot change the world unlike my hero Samuel Adams—but I can change my place in it.
Gone fishin' for now and soon gone from California.